I did three months training in the RMP cos Sutton Coldfield decided I was overqualified to be a tank crewman. I was taught that Section 69 was known by them (no not Them) as The Ways and Means Act.

Fast-forward some years past telling RMP where to stick their truncheons and re-enlisting in a cavalry regiment to a new RSM who told the NCOs of his regiment that if they could not find a better section to charge somebody under, he (the RSM) would have to think hard about whether the NCO was fit to be one.

Was Sect 69 the "Conduct predujicial to good order and military discipline" or "Bringing the Army into disrepute"?
I seem to recall both phrases being mentioned by my OC whilst standing in front of him but can`t recall if they were two separate charges or the same one.

Was Sect 69 the "Conduct predujicial to good order and military discipline" or "Bringing the Army into disrepute"?
I seem to recall both phrases being mentioned by my OC whilst standing in front of him but can`t recall if they were two separate charges or the same one.

Click to expand...

I can assure Peanut that Sect 69 could be made to cover anything you can think of,I remember being told once that the MOD would pay you if you could find anything in the Manual of Military Law that was not already covered,Sect 69 being the catch all section.Used it a few times myself to good effect.

In a manner Section 69 manifests itself in AGAI 67 (or is it the other way round?) and the values and standards of the British Army.

As we know, 252 action used to be a case of march the guilty b'stard in. Then some namby pamby got soft and brought up human rights, so, God forbid, things had to be proven.

AGAI 67 is on the balance of probability and therefore nothing has to be proven. It is however there for minor indiscretions, much as Section 69 was under the old system - I've never heard of anyone getting nailed to the wall with Section 69.

Peanut, I think S69 is "Conduct predujicial to good order and military discipline". I think S70 is "Bringing the Army into disrepute" - this is the one IIRC they tend to do you with when you are in trouble with civvy law. So much for double jeapody - GITS

Yep. S69 AA1955 was Conduct predujical. Covered anything and everything. Even if you were perceived to have upset someone in the CoC that fell under that remit. After all, your mere presence on the planet was deemed to be predjuicial!

conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline contrary to section 69 of the army act 1955 in that he at did whatever on that date, march the guilty party in. Section 70 was committing a civil offence contrary to section 70 of the army act 1955. Whichever you were fu-ked as soon as you were called to attention.

conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline contrary to section 69 of the army act 1955 in that he at did whatever on that date, march the guilty party in. Section 70 was committing a civil offence contrary to section 70 of the army act 1955. Whichever you were fu-ked as soon as you were called to attention.

Click to expand...

My bold

Did not need to be that specific! 'On, or about, the 20th Century' did......(insert what ever you wanted)

conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline contrary to section 69 of the army act 1955 in that he at did whatever on that date, march the guilty party in. Section 70 was committing a civil offence contrary to section 70 of the army act 1955. Whichever you were fu-ked as soon as you were called to attention.

Click to expand...

. . . which is why, eventually, the powers of OCs to administer summary justice were curtailed in the 1990s.

If the officer corps in general had been more scrupulous in its adherence to due process, and to rules of evidence at OCs Orders, then there would have been no case for for that curtailment.

As it was, too many OCs and COs were of a "March in the Guilty B*stard" mindset - and it was that which damaged the system, and led soldiers (rightly, in my view) to distrust the disciplinary process.

Once trust is gone, so too is respect, and without respect there can be no real discipline. Absolute fairness should be the touchstone of every officer and NCO.

Sec 69 was too often a catch-all, used by NCOs and Officers too idle to to determine whether a real offence had been committed, or what was its real nature in law.

If they couldnt get you on anything else there was always Sect 69. I was wondering how it would have stood up in todays era of the Courts of Human Rights.

Click to expand...

OK I do realise that this is the Old'n'Bold forum, but once again the Human Rights Act/ECHR have not actually had the effect which people imagine.

The offence of "Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" has NOT been abolished. It was never removed from the AA 1955, and is still contained in section 19 of the tri-service Armed Forces Act 2006, which is progressively replacing the single service discipline acts:

19 Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline
(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if he does an act that is prejudicial to good order and service discipline.
(2) In this section âactâ includes an omission and the reference to the doing of an act is to be read accordingly.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable to any punishment mentioned in the Table in section 164, but any sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of the offence must not exceed two years.

Click to expand...

PS Stonker (previous post) is right on what has hopefully changed, and why.

Ah what the hell!! I was young, rough round the edges and I probably deserved it.

It was the way the RSM used to wave at me that was the limiter on my young soldiering social life. Night on night off for a month on top of normal working hours - give me OC's any day.

By comparison 252's were a breeze and yes, they usually were section 69.

I got done once for serving over a single tot in the sqn bar, in contravention of BAOR standing orders - the OC's and SSM both favoured a double G & T - but they still put me through the mill on orders - go figure !!

Stonker.
Sad post. I can't think of a time when Jocks mistrusted their OCs (but then I left in the mid eighties). Most soldiers knew they were guilty before they were marched in by the CSM, indeed a good CSM would have weeded out the innocent - and discussed the 'Docket' with the OC before Orders commenced. Likewise on COs Orders.
Of course Buffalo Bill and Perry Mason would enter a tear jerking plea of mitigation, quote QRs or appeal to the 'Major's' Regimental pride (in the case of fighting with civilians or members of other regiments - at one time if they'd won lightened the sentence!) - great entertainment - and they knew it!

When did the integrity of the Officer Corps diminish to the extent soldiers stopped trusting them?

A Man's A Man For a' That! (Pipe tune (words by Robt Burns) played in all Scottish Regiments to announce COs Orders).